Drewhop Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 tl:dr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbs3000 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 The only issue I draw from this is that the state openly came out and said " Hey, yea we aren't really sure this is going to work/work like we think it's supposed too. Guess we will just give it a shot and see what happens." Of course a lawsuit came out of it... Obviously, hopefully it gets shot down and laughed out of court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted January 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Sentencing criminals to death costs taxpayers more money than life without parole AND research has shown the death penalty does not to deter violent crime. I'll gladly pay more taxes to have more scum like this put down. I'm not worrying about deterring dumb ass scum. Nothing will so we may as well just reduce their numbers. Life without the possibility of parole is a punishment too. Ending them and moving on is better all around. Allows for everyone to move on with any further thoughts to be given en. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck531 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 They should have some type of contraption like Jigsaw or something for deathrow inmates. Something like this would work. http://blogs.theage.com.au/schembri/saw4.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin Miata Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Regardless of your opinion on him and the crime he committed, I think it's foolish of the state to expose themselves to a potential lawsuit like this. It doesn't take a genius to see that something like this had a high chance of happening... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) The two meds given were Versed and Dilaudid. At work, we frequently give these two medications to people who are on a ventilator. And why do we do that? Because IT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD. Being on a vent sucks, so we give these to relax them and take away some of their pain. In high enough doses, these meds will knock out your respiratory drive and the vent does the breathing for them, you know, so they don't die. This man felt like a million bucks 10 seconds after they were in his system. He went to sleep, and that was it. He never knew or felt a thing. The meds cause respiratory arrest. Your body tries to compensate for a bit as best it can, but then the hypoxemia takes its toll, eventually causing cardiac arrest. The process is not exactly quick due to the body's compensatory mechanisms and the body will occasionally gasp, but the mind is unaware of the whole thing. If you've ever had surgery, you've probably been given some versed. Did you remember anything? No you did not. Every single person who gets this cocktail will die in the same exact manner, and NONE of them will be an instantaneous death. Drugs......unconscious.........respiratory arrest.................................gasp.........................................................................................gasp.......................................................................cardiac arrest. The old 3-drug combo used to consist of a sedative (sodium pentathal), followed by a paralytic (paralyzes everything, including the diaphragm), and then a massive dose of potassium chloride (caused immediate cardiac arrest). It seemed more humane because the inmate was paralyzed; they couldn't gasp even if they wanted to. They then went to a straight sodium pentathal, which produced the exact same results as the versed/dilaudid combo (respiratory arrest --> cardiac arrest), but I believe those hippies in France (where it was made) quit making it once they found out we were using it to kill people. The only people bitching about and criticizing the process are those with no medical knowledge to back it up. Ask any physician, and they'll tell you the same thing. Edited January 18, 2014 by RedRocket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleguy Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I don't know about this case, but the fact that we know that mentally handicapped and innocent people have been executed in the past along with my hesitation to give the state power to kill makes me very uncomfortable with the death penalty in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 ....then they do not need to watch him be killed in front of them. It is THEIR decision... :dumb: KillJoy You heard about it. You don't think they wouldn't have been well-informed? Please keep in mind that I'm not debating this situation in particular, only using it as an example. They were there still supporting the worthless fuck they call dad. That is their god damn fault. Now they want file a law suit, fucking worthless pieces of shit, that whole family deserves to burn in hell. This... I don't even know how to respond to such a ridiculous blanket statement. I don't necessarily agree with the lawsuit so I'm commenting, or attempting to comment, on your first two sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokin5s Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I don't know about this case, but the fact that we know that mentally handicapped and innocent people have been executed in the past along with my hesitation to give the state power to kill makes me very uncomfortable with the death penalty in general. I'm completely with you on this... and even then, I don't think the state should be performing the execution... tie the guy down, give a family member tools to do as he pleases. I can tell you I wouldn't hesitate to raise my hand and go in there and take that fucker out if he did that to my family. and that is only an option if they have CONCRETE PROOF.... if one person gets murdered and was innocent than this whole thing just isn't worth it... especially when the death penalty costs three times as much as life in prison. With that being said, this guy confessed that he raped and murdered that woman and her unborn baby, so I think he got off too easy... got almost 20 years of unpaid food, healthcare, etc... unfortunately, when that happens, because of the time lapse, it re-opens wounds for the family members of the victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurkvinny Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I think the death penalty would be a little more deterring if the average time from sentencing to follow through was measured in weeks or months instead of decades, don't ya think? I wish those inmates spending three decades on death row were at least forced to do something positive for society while being clothed, entertained and fed on my dime. Mandatory food bank service, labor for local community projects, SOMEthing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattKatz Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I don't agree with this lawsuit, I agree the man did a crime and IMO it took too long to Execute the orders......Death Row means just that....Death. Its not like they cut his extremities off and let him bleed out.....He was drugged first before the drug given to him to end his life. The world we live in is a messed up place where we have all gotten soft. Did I mention I have refrained from any opinion anywhere else because my damn brother dates one of his children.......SMH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleguy Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I think the death penalty would be a little more deterring if the average time from sentencing to follow through was measured in weeks or months instead of decades, don't ya think? I think California's experience with three strikes shows us that harsh punishments don't really serve as deterrents. Deterring crime with punishment is definitely an inverted u-curve when it comes to increasing punishments. The typical druggie/lowlife/gang member isn't logically considering the punishment when they commit a crime. If they were rational actors they wouldn't be doing those things. They are either drug addicts who won't think about the punishment or they will commit the crimes anyways because the power of law enforcement is not seen as legitimate in their communities and the forces that have power that is seen as legitimate (gangs/druggie friends/etc..) outweigh any possible punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoMeSomeFun Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Well everyone is entitled to there opinion but I disagree . I think the punishment should fit the crime. Life in jail with free tv,food,bed and shelter ,etc in my book does not fit the crime here. This sounds like a military deployment only difference is that the residents of the base get shot at, mortar etc. Guy I work with is corrections officer for a prison in Washington when he isn't out here and the free tv, and food set me off a little when he told me. I thought they sat in cells and went outside every now and then, nope even maximum security has these perks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Bastard Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I think the death penalty would be a more effective deterrant if the people being executed did in fact suffer and if prisoners in for serious crimes (that would be returned to society someday) were made to watch what could happen to them if they don't straighten up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 You know what suffering is? Knowing your wife with child was raped and stabbed... that's a lifelong memory. He got what he deserved. Boom. Headshot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Getting what he deserved or not, the state was negligent. The family has a case. As a society, if we willingly object offenders to torture because they 'deserve' it, what do we deserve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnaplay1647545503 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I don't think anyone is considering being put to death as a deterrent for anything. Being put to death is a punishment. Like nurkvinny stated it should happen within weeks not decades. As the article states, " your not entitled to a pain free execution". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattKatz Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Getting what he deserved or not, the state was negligent. The family has a case. As a society, if we willingly object offenders to torture because they 'deserve' it, what do we deserve? What Case do they have. Where do you see any torture in his death? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelliganx1 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Getting what he deserved or not, the state was negligent. The family has a case. As a society, if we willingly object offenders to torture because they 'deserve' it, what do we deserve? Didn't we already cover that it was his body's physiological response to what was going on and that he was unaware that it was happening. Have you ever seen say a knee replacement surgery take place, to watch it on a video it a pretty traumatic experience but you the person getting the surgery is unaware of all the sawing, hammering, pushing, pulling, and prodding going on. If they want to sue because they were traumatized by watching it OK they shouldn't have watched it but to sue because he was traumatized is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelliganx1 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Getting what he deserved or not, the state was negligent. The family has a case. As a society, if we willingly object offenders to torture because they 'deserve' it, what do we deserve? Oh and to answer your question we deserve to be able to live our lives without having to worry about being tortured and killed by another random citizen. It's a big catch 22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurkvinny Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Getting what he deserved or not, the state was negligent. The family has a case. As a society, if we willingly object offenders to torture because they 'deserve' it, what do we deserve? I disagree. I see no "torture" inflected by the State. A couple gasps for air? A flinch or two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Getting what he deserved or not, the state was negligent. The family has a case. As a society, if we willingly object offenders to torture because they 'deserve' it, what do we deserve? Base on the drug's mechanism of action and the definition of torture, there is no correlation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 The two meds given were Versed and Dilaudid. At work, we frequently give these two medications to people who are on a ventilator. And why do we do that? Because IT MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD. Being on a vent sucks, so we give these to relax them and take away some of their pain. In high enough doses, these meds will knock out your respiratory drive and the vent does the breathing for them, you know, so they don't die. This man felt like a million bucks 10 seconds after they were in his system. He went to sleep, and that was it. He never knew or felt a thing. The meds cause respiratory arrest. Your body tries to compensate for a bit as best it can, but then the hypoxemia takes its toll, eventually causing cardiac arrest. The process is not exactly quick due to the body's compensatory mechanisms and the body will occasionally gasp, but the mind is unaware of the whole thing. If you've ever had surgery, you've probably been given some versed. Did you remember anything? No you did not. Every single person who gets this cocktail will die in the same exact manner, and NONE of them will be an instantaneous death. Drugs......unconscious.........respiratory arrest.................................gasp.........................................................................................gasp.......................................................................cardiac arrest. The old 3-drug combo used to consist of a sedative (sodium pentathal), followed by a paralytic (paralyzes everything, including the diaphragm), and then a massive dose of potassium chloride (caused immediate cardiac arrest). It seemed more humane because the inmate was paralyzed; they couldn't gasp even if they wanted to. They then went to a straight sodium pentathal, which produced the exact same results as the versed/dilaudid combo (respiratory arrest --> cardiac arrest), but I believe those hippies in France (where it was made) quit making it once they found out we were using it to kill people. The only people bitching about and criticizing the process are those with no medical knowledge to back it up. Ask any physician, and they'll tell you the same thing. Couldn't have said it better. Dilaudid= hydromorphone, which is in the morphine family of drugs and 4x stronger than morphine. He was in a state euphoria before he became unconscious and died. Can't say the same for the girl he killed though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Getting what he deserved or not, the state was negligent. The family has a case. As a society, if we willingly object offenders to torture because they 'deserve' it, what do we deserve? 1. I'm not sure how they were negligent. This 'slow' death is to be expected. It might have looked brutal, but it wasn't. 2. That man was not tortured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 1. I'm not sure how they were negligent. This 'slow' death is to be expected. It might have looked brutal, but it wasn't. 2. That man was not tortured. Just playing devil's advocate here, but if that's the case, why wouldn't the state do more to inform and educate the public, especially the family, if nothing else than to help absolve liability? And of course, I don't expect you to have the answer for the state. I'm just thinking out loud... Well, in text form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.